• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WaPo : Iran Stronger Than Ever

Fenton

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Lol !!! WaPo in its haste to attack Trump seems to have accidently reported the truth.
Yes, after 8 years of Obama's disastrous ME policies, and after his legacy defining Iran deal, Iran is more powerful than ever.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...a_story.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmodefinin

I begining to think empowering Iran and extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood was his intention all along.
 
Fenton said:
Lol !!! WaPo in its haste to attack Trump seems to have accidently reported the truth.
Yes, after 8 years of Obama's disastrous ME policies, and after his legacy defining Iran deal, Iran is more powerful than ever.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...a_story.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmodefinin

I begining to think empowering Iran and extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood was his intention all along.
Click to expand...

Exactly what the Trump administration intends to do about a state of affairs that has already become deeply entrenched is unclear, however. So pervasive is Iran’s presence across the region that it is hard to see how any U.S. administration could easily roll it back without destabilizing allies, endangering Americans, undermining the war against the Islamic State and upsetting the new regional balance that emerged during the Obama administration’s retreat, analysts say.
Click to expand...

The accidental truth.
 
How pathetic is our media that the only way they tell the truth is by accident.
 
Fenton said:
Lol !!! WaPo in its haste to attack Trump seems to have accidently reported the truth.
Yes, after 8 years of Obama's disastrous ME policies, and after his legacy defining Iran deal, Iran is more powerful than ever.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...a_story.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmodefinin

I begining to think empowering Iran and extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood was his intention all along.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. And what will Trump do about Iran? Let's hear this "plan."
 
Fenton said:
Lol !!! WaPo in its haste to attack Trump seems to have accidently reported the truth.
Yes, after 8 years of Obama's disastrous ME policies, and after his legacy defining Iran deal, Iran is more powerful than ever.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...a_story.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmodefinin

I begining to think empowering Iran and extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood was his intention all along.
Click to expand...

What empowered iran was the fall of iraq and the destabilization of the region due to wars in libya and syria. It has almost entirely been sunni muslim extremists oppressing shia muslims, iran is a shia country and as libya fell and the syrian govt weakened, iran tends to stand as the last major country not run by sunni extremism.

The war in iraq also empowered iran, iraq is majority shia, but was run by the sunni baath party, but saddam took no sides with saudi arabia or iran, they were truly rogue. But saddam being opposed to both sides made either side fighting even through proxy nearly impossible.

When saddam fell the barrier between iran and saudi arabia became much smaller, leading both to try and influence iraq to expand their power.
 
beerftw said:
What empowered iran was the fall of iraq and the destabilization of the region due to wars in libya and syria. It has almost entirely been sunni muslim extremists oppressing shia muslims, iran is a shia country and as libya fell and the syrian govt weakened, iran tends to stand as the last major country not run by sunni extremism.

The war in iraq also empowered iran, iraq is majority shia, but was run by the sunni baath party, but saddam took no sides with saudi arabia or iran, they were truly rogue. But saddam being opposed to both sides made either side fighting even through proxy nearly impossible.

When saddam fell the barrier between iran and saudi arabia became much smaller, leading both to try and influence iraq to expand their power.
Click to expand...

It all boils down to The United States having a weak ass president for eight years.
 
apdst said:
It all boils down to The United States having a weak ass president for eight years.
Click to expand...

Not at all, it has to do with our wars there pushing countries to side between the two giants, the sunni arabians, or the shia iranians, every moderate and secular country between we disrupt or knock down gives more power to iran and saudi arabia.

If we simply invaded iran, it would be all out war in the middle east, as the sunni muslims would enact an ethnic cleansing of all non sunni muslims, and the smaller countries who would not conform to saudi arabia would be drawn into war.

The entire power of iran has to do with it being direct opposition to saudi arabia.
 
beerftw said:
What empowered iran was the fall of iraq and the destabilization of the region due to wars in libya and syria. It has almost entirely been sunni muslim extremists oppressing shia muslims, iran is a shia country and as libya fell and the syrian govt weakened, iran tends to stand as the last major country not run by sunni extremism.

The war in iraq also empowered iran, iraq is majority shia, but was run by the sunni baath party, but saddam took no sides with saudi arabia or iran, they were truly rogue. But saddam being opposed to both sides made either side fighting even through proxy nearly impossible.

When saddam fell the barrier between iran and saudi arabia became much smaller, leading both to try and influence iraq to expand their power.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. People seem to forget that the main reason the Reagan Administration backed Saddam's Iraq in the 80s was to weaken Iran.
 
beerftw said:
Not at all, it has to do with our wars there pushing countries to side between the two giants, the sunni arabians, or the shia iranians, every moderate and secular country between we disrupt or knock down gives more power to iran and saudi arabia.

If we simply invaded iran, it would be all out war in the middle east, as the sunni muslims would enact an ethnic cleansing of all non sunni muslims, and the smaller countries who would not conform to saudi arabia would be drawn into war.

The entire power of iran has to do with it being direct opposition to saudi arabia.
Click to expand...

It has to do with Obama leading from behind for eight years. Obama delivered the ME to Iran on a silver platter.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Totally agree. People seem to forget that the main reason the Reagan Administration backed Saddam's Iraq in the 80s was to weaken Iran.
Click to expand...

And israel our own ally backed iran. Even then our own ally had different goals. Israel most likely wanted stability, and iran was the counter to the big dog of the region. Although when we use israel to defend being against iran, iran has funded terrorists specifically hamas, but has never directly attacked Israel.

Saddam on the other hand fired scud missles directly at israel, had missles in place to launch chemical weapons in the past at israel, and had been the major threat. Us propping up saddam's power in the first place made a mess, by propping up our allies worst enemy, to attack a country that then was a much lesser threat.
 
apdst said:
It has to do with Obama leading from behind for eight years. Obama delivered the ME to Iran on a silver platter.
Click to expand...

We did that when we invaded Iraq and deposed Iran's mortal enemy.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
We did that when we invaded Iraq and deposed Iran's mortal enemy.
Click to expand...

We did that we we left Iraq and gave the whole show away. We were in prime strategic and tactical position until Obama gave in to an appeasement strategy.
 
Fenton said:
Lol !!! WaPo in its haste to attack Trump seems to have accidently reported the truth.
Yes, after 8 years of Obama's disastrous ME policies, and after his legacy defining Iran deal, Iran is more powerful than ever.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...a_story.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmodefinin

I begining to think empowering Iran and extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood was his intention all along.
Click to expand...
Iran has been a strong country for a long time. They have oil, a well trained military and a population that will rally around anything against the US. They still remember that we installed the Shah instead of the elected candidate. If the Iraq war was tough, Iran will be a hundred times harder in time and casualties.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
 
apdst said:
We did that we we left Iraq and gave the whole show away. We were in prime strategic and tactical position until Obama gave in to an appeasement strategy.
Click to expand...

Iran was already resurgent long before we left Iraq. Saddam was Sunni. He kept the Sunni majority in power in Iraq and oppressed the Shia majority. As soon as they held elections, they elected a Shia government in Iraq that was a puppet of Iran and that was before Obama even took office.
 
apdst said:
We did that we we left Iraq and gave the whole show away. We were in prime strategic and tactical position until Obama gave in to an appeasement strategy.
Click to expand...

Iraq was stable when we left it, what made it unstable was overthrowing the libyan govt and backing rebels in syria. This left a power vacuum that allowed al quaeda of iraq to form into isis, going from a weak group to exploiting the power vacuums to grow in power and return to iraq.

Almost all powerful terrorist groups form in a vacuum, like al quaeda formed after we helped push the russians out of afghanistan, then left them high and dry. That power vacuum allowed the taliban to sieze control and al quaeda to form unopposed.
 
beerftw said:
Iraq was stable when we left it, what made it unstable was overthrowing the libyan govt and backing rebels in syria. This left a power vacuum that allowed al quaeda of iraq to form into isis, going from a weak group to exploiting the power vacuums to grow in power and return to iraq.

Almost all powerful terrorist groups form in a vacuum, like al quaeda formed after we helped push the russians out of afghanistan, then left them high and dry. That power vacuum allowed the taliban to sieze control and al quaeda to form unopposed.
Click to expand...

They seem to form everywhere in the Middle East that does not have a brutal strongman dictator in power.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
They seem to form everywhere in the Middle East that does not have a brutal strongman dictator in power.
Click to expand...

That is true, they are not the only region though with that problem, russia has a strongarmed govt, as do many eastern european countries, some countries can not handle the freedom we have. For some more freedom is less, as seen in the middle east where removing a dictator means instead you have crazy masked guys decapitating people and kicking gays off buildings. Libya after qadaffi fell, had ethnic cleansing against black people, who were protected by the previous govt. Syria had christians shia alawite and many non muslim ancient kurdish religions persecuted, all previously protected.

The middle east can work with democracy as seen in tunisia, but they need to do it their own way, not ours or anyone elses. Some countries need a strongarmed govt to keep people as free as possible, and installing democracy literally means for them mob rule.
 
Iran has been the Boogie Man for ages now.

They are no direct threat to America and they have killed infinitely less innocent civilians than America has since 9/11.

Iran is not the largest exporter of terror in the world - America is.

What Iran does is none of America's business and what the Middle East does is none of America's business.

And the faster Americans realize that - the faster the 'threat' of terrorism against Americans drops to practically nil.

Neocons are FAR more of a threat to America than Iran could ever dream of being.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Iran was already resurgent long before we left Iraq. Saddam was Sunni. He kept the Sunni majority in power in Iraq and oppressed the Shia majority. As soon as they held elections, they elected a Shia government in Iraq that was a puppet of Iran and that was before Obama even took office.
Click to expand...

Then, when Obama took office he gave up prime strategic real estate and then cut a deal to appease the Iranians. He even paid them ransom money for the return of kidnapped Americans.
 
beerftw said:
Iraq was stable when we left it, what made it unstable was overthrowing the libyan govt and backing rebels in syria. This left a power vacuum that allowed al quaeda of iraq to form into isis, going from a weak group to exploiting the power vacuums to grow in power and return to iraq.

Almost all powerful terrorist groups form in a vacuum, like al quaeda formed after we helped push the russians out of afghanistan, then left them high and dry. That power vacuum allowed the taliban to sieze control and al quaeda to form unopposed.
Click to expand...

The Taliban didn't sieze control in a vaccum. They never actually controlled the whole country. But, it happened after years a civil war.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992–96)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1996–2001)
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
The Taliban didn't sieze control in a vaccum. They never actually controlled the whole country. But, it happened after years a civil war.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992–96)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1996–2001)
Click to expand...

They controlled the vast majority of the country. The Northern Alliance only controlled the top forth or so. They were making no progress until we went in after 9/11. The majority Pashtuns stayed aligned with the Tailban.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
They controlled the vast majority of the country. The Northern Alliance only controlled the top forth or so. They were making no progress until we went in after 9/11. The majority Pashtuns stayed aligned with the Tailban.
Click to expand...

What'd I just say?
 
apdst said:
The Taliban didn't sieze control in a vaccum. They never actually controlled the whole country. But, it happened after years a civil war.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992–96)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1996–2001)
Click to expand...

Um that shows it as a vacuum, after the soviets left it was never under a single govt, but rather 3 competing govts, plus alot of smaller factions. I was deployed to norther afghanistan, which has a heavy shia population plus some zoroastrians which were next to not existent everywhere in the world except iran due to islamic conquest.

In northern afghan in mazari shariff in the balk provice(ancient city of balk it is actually still there) was the last stronghold against the taliban, in which they killed numerous shia muslims, and when mazari shariff(or mezar e sharif literally even the locals are not sure how to spell it) the taliban gained full control of the country, and the last moderate govt fell to the taliban.

A power vacuum does not mean 100% of the country fell, it means there is no power structure, in the country as a whole or a given area. Exploiting a power vacuum is using the lack of govt to fuel your own, and other areas with govt were very weak in afghan except the northern region, which was the last to fall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom